|
Thinking of investing in these for my group's Pathfinder game. Even my players miss the *groan* of rolling a "1" and the thrill of something special on a critical hit. However, could use some input from those who have been putting them into use!
(1) What, if any, of the optional rules work best for people
(2) Has anyone homebrewed any optional rules for application (and why)
(3) Do the effects scale well with higher levels? I can't get much from card previews, but it seems at higher levels you'd just want the straight extra damage most times on the crit deck.
(4) Anything else you've come across that works well or doesn't work.
We used the Critical Hit deck a while ago, it was fun, I can't remember any real problems with it. I think the characters were around level 8 or 9 when a TPK ended the campaign so I can't say much about higher levels, but it worked fine up until then.
A friend of mine uses the Critical Hit deck for falling damage. He never liked the idea of a character falling 40 feet and walking away with 6 points of damage from low rolls ha. So any falling damage requires drawing a Critical Hit card and taking the effect for blunt damage. He uses the length of the fall to set any DCs (dc 10 + number of d6's). I like it and I'm going to use it in my next campaign.
Our group picked up both decks about a year ago and never looked back. They make crits really exciting and fumbles more believable. Not to mention they take the pressure off the DM to come up with interesting fluff for crits and fumbles.
One houserule we use is that the weapons always deal their normal crit damage + any effect from the card. The reason for this is that monsters and non-heroic baddies always get this multiplied damage (because they do not draw from the crit deck.) This makes the "normal damage" clauses a real let down on the crit cards. So we just take the secondary effects and ignore the damage multiplier on the cards to preserve balance.
|
One houserule we use is that the weapons always deal their normal crit damage + any effect from the card. The reason for this is that monsters and non-heroic baddies always get this multiplied damage (because they do not draw from the crit deck.) This makes the "normal damage" clauses a real let down on the crit cards. So we just take the secondary effects and ignore the damage multiplier on the cards to preserve balance.
Also, it doesn't really take into account weapons with a higher multiplier than X2. So when it says 'normal damage' I equate it to 'cirt multiplier-1=new crit multiplier' and have them use the card (so a X2 is a X1+Card a X3 is a X2+Card... ect).
I know other people house ruled that a X3 meant you could pick 3 cards and choose which one happened... but I thought that brought too much metagame into it.
also: at my table; when using the decks, neither criticals nor fumbles need to be confirmed.
I know other people house ruled that a X3 meant you could pick 3 cards and choose which one happened... but I thought that brought too much metagame into it.
House rule? Isn't it the crit deck's standard rule that you take multiple cards based on how much the crit multiplier is above x2? I don't have my cards handy but I thought that was the standard practice.
I agree it has some metagamey implications, but they're pretty minor.
(1) What, if any, of the optional rules work best for people
(2) Has anyone homebrewed any optional rules for application (and why)
(3) Do the effects scale well with higher levels? I can't get much from card previews, but it seems at higher levels you'd just want the straight extra damage most times on the crit deck.
(4) Anything else you've come across that works well or doesn't work.
(1) Most of my players prefer the banking Crits to offset Fumbles optional rule. As GM, I prefer the Weapon Focus optional rule since my NPC opponents normally don't last long enough to get any pay-off for delaying gratification.
(2) We tried out a homebrew rule that allowed the use of a Crit card and use the full (Core Rulebook) critical multiplier. After a couple untimely (and especially grusome) deaths, we dropped the crictical multiplier component back in line with the deck's instructions.
(3) No one in our group has made it above 9th level yet, so I lack experience with how the cards will work at higher levels. So far, though, the Crit cards have had effects far more entertaining than just whittling away at hit points.
(4) Don't forget to shuffle your deck each session. A big part of the fun of these cards (at least when I'm GMing) is not knowing what's gonna happen with a 20 or a 1.
The critical decks certainly add some drama to the game. Last session my fighter and the sorceress were swallowed whole. The cleric cast at the beastie and fumbles. He pulls: Target displaced to another dimension.
The way we use it is the followin. Take the weapon multiplier+ the card multiplier -2 and that's your new multiplier. Works like a charm, we don't use stuff to let people choose more than one card, not normally at least.
Criticals and Fumble must be more than simple damage, I miss old 2nd edition critical chart, but I don't see it coming back.
Thinking of investing in these for my group's Pathfinder game. Even my players miss the *groan* of rolling a "1" and the thrill of something special on a critical hit. However, could use some input from those who have been putting them into use!
(1) What, if any, of the optional rules work best for people
(2) Has anyone homebrewed any optional rules for application (and why)
(3) Do the effects scale well with higher levels? I can't get much from card previews, but it seems at higher levels you'd just want the straight extra damage most times on the crit deck.
(4) Anything else you've come across that works well or doesn't work.
We've been using the crit / fumble decks for the last half of my Age of Worms campaign. They work great, I really like the inclusion of crits / fumbles for magic spells. However, at higher levels (over 14th)there are some things we had to modify.
1 - We houseruled that the cards are only used on a natural roll of 1 or 20 (we also houserule that a natural 20 does not need a roll to confirm a critical). When high level characters have Improved Critical or keen weapons and several attacks per round, you'd be surprised how many times they roll 18-20 on the die. The sheer number of confirmed crits made drawing from the deck a regular occurence, which resulted in frequent massive damage and kinda ruined the novelty of drawing a crit card.
2 - We don't draw more than one card, but we do use the bank a crit card for fumbles. I think this is a good option for crit cards that do normal damage or don't really apply to the circumstances.
We love the cards. I don't allow banking of crits to offset fumbles. If someone has a multiplier greater than x2, I draw extra cards and tell them the name of the effect. I don't tell them what the effect is though. I let them choose based off of the name alone.
I am running the Age of Worms campaign as well and it's a ton of fun. The party is only level 7 right now but they have been using the decks since level 3. Before that we used the charts in the Dragon Compendium. We like the decks so much more.
|
|
My gaming store let me down by being sold-out of the Critical Hits deck, so I've just got the Fumbles deck and will look over it this eve. Interested in the option of PCs only drawing 1 card max per combat for a fumble as I've never been a fan of punishing the high-level warrior who has more chances to roll 1s.
|
My gaming store let me down by being sold-out of the Critical Hits deck, so I've just got the Fumbles deck and will look over it this eve. Interested in the option of PCs only drawing 1 card max per combat for a fumble as I've never been a fan of punishing the high-level warrior who has more chances to roll 1s.
To assist with this I run the house-rule at my table that critical fumbles can only occur on the first attack. Everybody has an equal chance to fumble, and that fighter, having more attacks, has a better chance at critting than other classes.
|
To assist with this I run the house-rule at my table that critical fumbles can only occur on the first attack. Everybody has an equal chance to fumble, and that fighter, having more attacks, has a better chance at critting than other classes.
I personally rule that a fumble usually wastes the rest of the players round dealing with the consequences. Say you fumble with a morning star and come up starts pulling them "My Teef" card. You just smacked yourself in the face with a morningstar there is no way you are going to be able to recover to make 3 more attacks.
More attacks gives the chance for more crits and more damage, this to me should go hand in hand with increased chance for f-ups.
|
|
More attacks gives the chance for more crits and more damage, this to me should go hand in hand with increased chance for f-ups.
I just can't get on board with that. Incurring a fumble with each attack significantly increases the number of fumbles for the high BAB characters, which by definition are those martially trained and should be fumbling less.
I just can't imagine that dual wielding maniac of a level 20 fighter having 300-400% the number of fumbles over the wizard who barely knows how to swing a staff simply because the fighter gets more attacks. Making things worse is this stacked with the fact that the group will likely fumble significantly more often than the bad guys because of the increased number of attacks. Fumbles are already an optional rule, I just can't make them that nasty.
|
|
I just can't get on board with that. Incurring a fumble with each attack significantly increases the number of fumbles for the high BAB characters, which by definition are those martially trained and should be fumbling less.
I just can't imagine that dual wielding maniac of a level 20 fighter having 300-400% the number of fumbles over the wizard who barely knows how to swing a staff simply because the fighter gets more attacks. Making things worse is this stacked with the fact that the group will likely fumble significantly more often than the bad guys because of the increased number of attacks. Fumbles are already an optional rule, I just can't make them that nasty.
Spellcasters can fumble on ray attacks too, don't forget that :)
Matter of preference though for sure. I just have a hard time compensating the idea of pulling a muscle, or cutting your arm open and continuing on with your full attack like everything is a-ok
I just can't get on board with that. Incurring a fumble with each attack significantly increases the number of fumbles for the high BAB characters, which by definition are those martially trained and should be fumbling less.
I just can't imagine that dual wielding maniac of a level 20 fighter having 300-400% the number of fumbles over the wizard who barely knows how to swing a staff simply because the fighter gets more attacks. Making things worse is this stacked with the fact that the group will likely fumble significantly more often than the bad guys because of the increased number of attacks. Fumbles are already an optional rule, I just can't make them that nasty.
Spellcasters can fumble on ray attacks too, don't forget that :)
Matter of preference though for sure. I just have a hard time compensating the idea of pulling a muscle, or cutting your arm open and continuing on with your full attack like everything is a-ok
Not a good comparison. There are very few 'must have' spells that require an attack roll. And if you want to they can be avoided completely. A Fighter doesn't have that option.
|
|
Not a good comparison. There are very few 'must have' spells that require an attack roll. And if you want to they can be avoided completely. A Fighter doesn't have that option.
Comes with the territory? Everything is supposed to have drawbacks, attacking more often means you will fumble more often, that is the nature of things.
Plus I see it as more than fair because a melee combatant doesn't need to make a concentration check every time it is raining or risk losing his action. A failed concentration check is just as (if not more so) punitive and happens far more often.But to contribute to the topic Yes I love these decks, the add a lot of fun and neat fun to the game.
|
|
Comes with the territory? Everything is supposed to have drawbacks, attacking more often means you will fumble more often, that is the nature of things.
Plus I see it as more than fair because a melee combatant doesn't need to make a concentration check every time it is raining or risk losing his action. A failed concentration check is just as (if not more so) punitive and happens far more often.But to contribute to the topic Yes I love these decks, the add a lot of fun and neat fun to the game.
Um...
Considering the original poster stated:
(1) What, if any, of the optional rules work best for people
(2) Has anyone homebrewed any optional rules for application (and why)
I think we've been contributing to the topic by discussing house rules on how we arbitrate fumbles falls within that category.
Concentration checks are hardly a comparison vs. fighters swinging their weapons and fumbling every few hits. Most of the time concentration checks are caused by poor tactics (aka poor tactics by the concentratee) or good movement by the attacker (aka good tactics by the person causing the concentration check). Even when they're not caused by poor tactics, they're taken willingly by a caster knowing exactly what they're getting into for that round. A fumble on the other hand is a random failure caused by a poor dice roll that will occur quite literally 2x more often for a first level dual wielding fighter than a first level wizard and 4x more often for a 6th level dual wielding fighter than the 6th level wizard swinging his staff.
In an apples to apples comparison, you're stating that there should be a fumble penalty for the less-effective (for a fighter at least) dual wielding fighter vs. the fighter using the vital strike feat tree and and a 2-handed weapon hitting once each round. Attacking more often for a class who's sole purpose is to swing a weapon shouldn't have a drawback of drawing more often from a fumble deck (have you seen the penalties in that deck).
I used to feel the way you did, but there was another similar thread awhile ago where somebody posted the actual odds of fumbling in comparison to different classes and frankly, once you see that, it's not to admit it's just outright unfair to the fighter types.
|
Sounds like you need to talk to your GM about when to use the crit deck for NPC's. My GM uses the "bosses and major npcs" option. Everyday mobs would just do double damage. Personally, in my last session, I pulled the decapitation card against my foe. That one would suck if it ever hit me.
Yeah, we only use them for major NPCs, and we also require a confirm of a fumble roll just like a crit. That plus hero points, helps reduce the amount of really bad fumble results that befall the party...
Comes with the territory? Everything is supposed to have drawbacks, attacking more often means you will fumble more often, that is the nature of things.
Agreed.
Unless you are using a weapon that only threatens a critical hit on a natural 20 and you don't have the improved critical feat then the probability that you'll fumble too often is unlikely as you'll be threatening critical hits far more often than you’ll fumble, which more than balances thing out [in your favour].
It's easy to focus on the downside - fumbles - and over look the up side - more crits -.
EDIT: I use both decks for all crits/fumbles [no option] unless the attacker has an Int score of 1 or 2 in which case we just multiple the damage.
My group uses the Crit Hit Deck. We don't use the Fumble Deck.
~ We use the Boss and Key Bad Guys only get to use the deck.
~ We use the weapons X Modifier for damage. My group didn't like pulling more cards they just use their weapons X range.
~ While they don't get very many crits, no one has gone down that road yet, yet. When they do, it's exciting! They actually pulled out a nail biter of a fight the other night with an BEBG when a crit made him unable to cast his biggest spells! Deflating for me, awesome for them! It was like a that Long Bomb, Break Away Run, Last Inning Home Run, final minute Goal in the Championship Game!
~ I like the thought of offsetting Fumbles with Crits. It means you don't get cool effects from the Crit deck but you don't slap yerself in the choppers with your mace. I can see folks using that. I think it should be a player choice though not a forced thing. Some will want to 'Walk that Fine Line'.
Hope some of this helped
Have Fun out there!!
~ W ~
|
|
Good thoughts!
Read the 1,2,3 rules on Fumbles and saw the "confirm a fumble" option. It's more dice rolling (on a rare occasion), but seems my best bet to avoid screwing over players when they start getting multiple attacks.
It's weird, but my players actually used to enjoy seeing a "mishap" on a 1 (a collective *groan* but the roll of the dice actually carried some dangerous "excitement" to it). 'Course, I'm now obligated to find the Crits deck too for those "home run" times!
|
We've been playing with the Crit deck since it came out and though it is fun my power gamer spent a few hours going over every card analyzing them (just like he does every other option in the books). Since doing that the combat oriented characters have ceased using Slashing weapons for Bludgeoning or Piercing ones. Also there's a single card that actually makes you lose your weapon which they entire table vehemently disagrees with. You should never have a drawback when you score a crit.
I for one, love the randomness of it. I only allow major bosses and NPC's to draw. One of our houserules reintroduces the concept of the 20-20-confirm insta death. If you 20-20-confirm you get to draw one additional card and apply BOTH effects.
--Electro-Vrock Therapy